Cleveland isn't that bad. And I hate Cleveland. But their defense is decent to good. Brandon Weinke isn't too bad, even though they can only count on about 2 years out of him before he has to retire for his hip replacement surgery, and I doubt they'll get any decent receivers in those two years.

KC isn't good but better than Jacksonville. Jacksonville, especially with their offense injured and out for "significant time", is the worst. Luckily, things will turn around for them in LA.

I'm going off the board to choose Carolina. Maybe not the worst team but definitely the worst organizational/coaching job. They pay two guys superstar running back money (Williams gets 8.6m a year, Stewart gets 7.3m a year). Tolbert gets upper-echelon backup money (2.5m a year). Know how many times this year those guys have combined to run it? 99. That trio is averaging 16.5 carries a game this year and are being paid an average of 18.4 million.

Seems as if that's the GM's fault, which the owner seems to think it was - but I can't help thinking that if they ran a similar offense to what the Redskins are doing with RG3 that they'd be a lot better off. They've put way too much on Newton way too early in the passing game.

coolio mack:Seems as if that's the GM's fault, which the owner seems to think it was - but I can't help thinking that if they ran a similar offense to what the Redskins are doing with RG3 that they'd be a lot better off.

Hell, they were more successful late in last season when they started running the damn ball. Guess they didn't learn from that.

I have Dwayne Bowe in two fake football leagues; when Cassel starts he's a WR stud, the first game with Quinn in there he was damn near invisible, even though Quinn threw to him a lot. Sure hope that doesn't continue.

They ranked just 25th in rushing yards/game with Jones-Drew; his backup (and the only other RB with more than 1 carry on the team) is now averaging 2.6 yards on 34 carries. The Chiefs have had terrible quarterback play so far, but have the #3-ranked rushing offense in the league & are actually 15th in overall defense (yards/game); they've just been killed by turnovers. Cleveland still has some significant holes on defense & at receiver, but Weeden has been much better than most expected & they stay close in their games (worst loss was only by 14 points, to the Giants, in New Jersey; 4 of their 6 losses have been by 7 points or fewer).

Based on what I've seen of USC this year, I might be prepared to put money on the proposition that Barkley will be wretched as a pro.

I gotta tell you though, I'd take a small chance on Barkley being an NFL-capable QB than trying to do the same thing they've done the past 30 years, trying to squeeze a couple more years out of someone like Hasselbeck or Jason Campbell, or throwing starter money at someone like TJ Yates or Skelton. Or, God help us, Vick or Tebow.

I just really hope the lose out. Trade Bowe for picks, find a mystery injury in Charles' knee, do whatever it takes. Tank the fark out of this season, I'm all for it. Because if we don't get Barkley or maybe Geno Smith, they're either going to run out a retread, or they're going to completely reach for someone like Klein or Landry Jones, and set the franchise back another 5 years.

I thumb my nose at Chief fans who lauded and lauded the Crennel hiring, saying, "oh... he's a great coach stuck in a bad situation in Cleveland"... puh-lease... He is a terrible coach... time and time again, his ineptness directly led to losses. A good coach should never have an effect on the game, let alone a negative one.

skrame:I love when people rip on Weeden's age, ignoring the fact that he was born in the same year as Rodgers, and is younger than both Mannings (by 7 & 2 years), Brees (4 years), Brady (6 years), etc.

A rookie is younger than guys who have been in the league a decade, won Super Bowls, and are pretty much all shoo-in HoF candidates (assuming they don't die this year)? WOW!

I mean seriously you knew the other guys were studs by the time they were 29, weeden the jury is still out, and even if he is good/greate/elite he still missed a good chunk of his career (like 2 contracts worth).

farbekrieg:I mean seriously you knew the other guys were studs by the time they were 29, weeden the jury is still out, and even if he is good/greate/elite he still missed a good chunk of his career (like 2 contracts worth).

It is a legitimate arguement imo

Weeden's physical peak will be over by the team he acquires sufficient experience, which is probably the largest problem. QBs in their mid 30s tend to get slow, weak, and/or brittle.

skrame:js34603: Brandon Weinke isn't too bad, even though they can only count on about 2 years out of him before he has to retire for his hip replacement surgery,

I love when people rip on Weeden's age, ignoring the fact that he was born in the same year as Rodgers, and is younger than both Mannings (by 7 & 2 years), Brees (4 years), Brady (6 years), etc.

I think people are more laughing at the fact that the Browns chose to build their franchise around a guy who will not be in the league long enough to be a legitimate superstar. If Weeden is as good as Peyton and has a similar career arc, he will be good next year for 11 years. You really think Weeden at 41 is going to be the same player as Manning at 34?

skrame:js34603: Brandon Weinke isn't too bad, even though they can only count on about 2 years out of him before he has to retire for his hip replacement surgery,

I love when people rip on Weeden's age, ignoring the fact that he was born in the same year as Rodgers, and is younger than both Mannings (by 7 & 2 years), Brees (4 years), Brady (6 years), etc.

They aren't coming in green and trying to adapt to the pro game at that age. Those guys have years of seasoning. The only challenge in front of them is keeping their level of play up despite the natural aging process, as accelerated by being regularly beat on by defensive ends and LBs. By the time Weeden gets it, if he ever does, his time will be rather short.

roc6783:skrame: js34603: Brandon Weinke isn't too bad, even though they can only count on about 2 years out of him before he has to retire for his hip replacement surgery,

I love when people rip on Weeden's age, ignoring the fact that he was born in the same year as Rodgers, and is younger than both Mannings (by 7 & 2 years), Brees (4 years), Brady (6 years), etc.

I think people are more laughing at the fact that the Browns chose to build their franchise around a guy who will not be in the league long enough to be a legitimate superstar. If Weeden is as good as Peyton and has a similar career arc, he will be good next year for 11 years. You really think Weeden at 41 is going to be the same player as Manning at 34?

I am not saying it is impossible, but it seems highly unlikely.

But why are people so concerned about 11 years down the road? That's a long, long time away. Besides, everyone is pointing out guys that have been top draft picks in their careers coming out of college. What about Kurt Warner? Rich Gannon? Even a Matt Hasselback that didn't become a full time starter until he was 28.

Let's say it takes him three full seasons to "get it". Year 4 he starts off at 31, going on 32 in Oct. Brady, Brees, and Manning have had some of their best years in their early 30s. Those three also got huge contracts after age 32. He'll have plenty of time to show what he can do and have his prime years still left.

And while everyone is focused on his age, also keep in mind the talent around him and style of play. If he plays behind great protection and can stay upright, he'll play a long time. If not, he'll have a shorter career. Look at a guy like RGIII - he's 22 now but will he even make it to 29 if he keeps running it 10 times a game and takes the physical punishment of a running back?

Also, does anyone know Weeden's workout routine? His dietary habits and how he takes care of his body? There's just too many factors with this to accurately predict where he'll be 5-10 years down the road.

I think people are more laughing at the fact that the Browns chose to build their franchise around a guy who will not be in the league long enough to be a legitimate superstar. ***snip***

But why are people so concerned about 11 years down the road? That's a long, long time away. Besides, everyone is pointing out guys that have been top draft picks in their careers coming out of college. What about Kurt Warner? Rich Gannon? Even a Matt Hasselback that didn't become a full time starter until he was 28.

***snip***

I am pretty sure that the bolded part answers your question...but here goes:

Can we agree that when you draft a guy in the first round, you expect that he will be playing his most productive years with your team? If yes, then can we agree that most QBs take a few years to develop into worthwhile starters by either sitting on the bench for a few years or starting and not being very good for a few years? If we agree on those points, then can we also agree that MOST QBs are at their best between 27 and 33. Go ahead, look it up, it's true.

Now can you see why it is a bit odd to see a team spending a first round pick on a guy who is entering the league as a rookie 2 years after most QBs have already started their prime?

I am not saying it will be an utter failure, but it sure is an easy target for mockery.

Also, to your points regarding the 3 QBs you named, Hasselbeck - pro backup, Gannon - pro backup, Warner - played in the Arena League for 4 years, then was a backup. So you see the common thread that these guys have that Weeden doesn't?

I think people are more laughing at the fact that the Browns chose to build their franchise around a guy who will not be in the league long enough to be a legitimate superstar. ***snip***

But why are people so concerned about 11 years down the road? That's a long, long time away. Besides, everyone is pointing out guys that have been top draft picks in their careers coming out of college. What about Kurt Warner? Rich Gannon? Even a Matt Hasselback that didn't become a full time starter until he was 28.

Can we agree that when you draft a guy in the first round, you expect that he will be playing his most productive years with your team? If yes, then can we agree that most QBs take a few years to develop into worthwhile starters by either sitting on the bench for a few years or starting and not being very good for a few years? If we agree on those points, then can we also agree that MOST QBs are at their best between 27 and 33. Go ahead, look it up, it's true.

Now can you see why it is a bit odd to see a team spending a first round pick on a guy who is entering the league as a rookie 2 years after most QBs have already started their prime?

I am not saying it will be an utter failure, but it sure is an easy target for mockery.

Also, to your points regarding the 3 QBs you named, Hasselbeck - pro backup, Gannon - pro backup, Warner - played in the Arena League for 4 years, then was a backup. So you see the common thread that these guys have that Weeden doesn't?

Late response, but maybe you'll still be around.

On the bolded part: You say the Browns want to "build around this guy". I disagree - their franchise player in that draft was Richardson, which is why they took him 3rd overall. They seemingly took Weeden as an upgrade to McCoy and a guy that can play right away (due to his age and supposed maturity, I guess).

And drafting a guy in the first round now is a lot different than a few years ago when you had to pay that guy franchise money. The rookie wage scale IMO devalues the need to hit big on a first rounder. If Weeden can't play in a couple years, big deal - they grab another QB. Not to mention they took him late in the first round, so they can't be paying him more than a couple million a year.

I wholly agree that most QB's don't start this late, and it's not 'ideal' to have to grab a guy this old in the draft. But I still say there's way too much projecting way, way, way into the future instead of worrying about now. So let's go back to the bolded part of your post:

I think people are more laughing at the fact that the Browns chose to build their franchise around a guy who will not be in the league long enough to be a legitimate superstar.

- Richardson is their franchise guy- Weeden can play 8-10 years assuming he stays healthy and upright- Why worry about the future when you're the Browns?

Also, ask the Vikings about how well building their franchise around a RB is going. Yes, I know they are doing well this year so far, but you need a franchise QB to be a consistent contender in the NFL. You do have a valid point about Weeden not being as big of a risk due to the pay scale, but I still do not think it will work out well overall.